Should Berkeley voters approve Measure X? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Berkeley voters should approve Measure X on November 3, 2026.

The measure would change rent rules for some homes and tenants.

What supporters say

• The measure could help covered tenants keep their homes and avoid sudden rent jumps.
• Wider tenant groups could help renters work together and speak with one voice.
• Fee cuts for some low-cost housing groups could save money and ease their work.

What critics say

• The 10 percent yearly rent limit may not change rent for many covered homes.
• The measure may help people living there now more than people who need homes later.
• Stronger rent rules could shrink the number of rental homes and push up rents.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; evidence strength matters more.

Measure X would amend Berkeley’s rent ordinance on the November 3, 2026 ballot. Voters must weigh stronger protections for existing tenants against possible effects on rental supply, mobility and access for people seeking housing.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure X is that it could make housing more stable for tenants already covered by the ordinance. The city’s official analysis says the amendment would prevent some exemptions from changing simply because a unit’s legal status changes during an existing tenancy. It would also limit lawful periodic rent increases to 10 percent in any one-year period. Research from San Francisco found that rent control reduced displacement among incumbent renters and made them more likely to remain at the same address, although the study also found effects on mobility and housing supply 1 (see Figure 1).

The measure could also make it easier for tenants to organize. It would expand eligibility for tenant associations to some properties with fewer than five units and preserve an association’s authorization when a building’s management changes. Those provisions could reduce coordination problems, though their practical effect is less certain 2.

Another provision would allow fee reductions or waivers for certain subsidized units owned, leased or controlled by qualifying nonprofit organizations. That could reduce administrative burdens for mission-driven housing providers. However, the available analysis does not estimate the savings to nonprofits or the revenue the city might lose 3.

The case against

The main concern is that stronger rent protections can help current tenants while creating costs for future renters. A quasi-experimental San Francisco study estimated that affected landlords reduced their rental supply by 15 percent, a change associated with a 5.1 percent citywide rent increase. The study also reported conversions or removals of rental units (see Figure 2). Those figures do not show that Berkeley would experience the same effects, but they are evidence that expanded or longer-lasting controls may not be cost-free.

Measure X could also favor people who already hold regulated apartments over low-income households trying to enter them. Bay Area research found that rent stabilization helped residents with the lowest socioeconomic status remain in their neighborhoods, while limiting access for some other low-income people who might otherwise have moved into regulated units. The San Francisco research likewise linked rent control to reduced mobility 5.

A further question is how much difference the 10 percent ceiling would make. For many covered units, it may have little effect, even as it places a significant limit on particular exemptions or unusually large lawful increases 6. The official analysis does not say how often rents now rise above that level, how many units would become newly covered, or what the amendment would do to vacancies, citywide rents, supply, administrative costs or city revenue.